I wonder how a cessationist would deal with the direct Biblical statements on phrphecy? ephesians 4:11 states that Christ gave some as prophets. Why? Three reasons (1) For the perfecting of the saints, (2) for the work of the ministry, and (3) for the edifying of the boyd of Christ. Hmmm, I don’t see anywhere in that list that prophecy was given to confirm and validate the giving of the written Word of God. And for how long was it given? “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge . . .”. Hmm, doesn’t seem to say “unitl the closing of the canon”.

Now, the fact that I have never given a prophecy, or heard one given, or been convinced that someone has given one, does not mean that the gift has ceased and cannot happen, adn taht if someone claims to have given a prophecy it must (logically) be of Satan because it cannot be (in current times) of the Spirit.

Similarly, what is the reason Paul gives for the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12? “to every man to profit”, not to confirm the giving of the written Word. And what, moreover, is the point of verses 11 and following? It’s all about the various parts of the body needing each other. That is, the parts of the body not blessed with prophecy or tongues or other such gifts needs the part of the body that does have that. The gifts are in relation to the needs of the body, not in relation to the closing of the canon or the validation of the ministry of the apostles.

Furthermore, “continuationist”, “charismatic”, and “cessationist” are not biblical categories. They are categories relevant to the western cultural experiences and theological traditions. Consequently, teven if one demonstrates that “charismatic” according to CMP’s definition is wrong or invalid or even inconsistent with the Bible, that does not take even one step to demonstrating that cessationism is true. That is, ev en if the current charismatic cultural expectations of “normativeness” and “frequency” are wrong or unbilbiical, that does not mean that the Biblical charismata have ceased, or that we are reduced to only acknowledging that miracles (a non-biblical word) exist.

The further problem with CMP’s post, which many commenters have struggled against, is that “charismatic” has a far broader meaning, and is a far broader category, than his definition. Many who chip in here would consider themsleves “charismatic” but would not fall within CMP’s definition. And, arguably, their use of “charismatic” is a more normative use than CMP’s restricted use. CMP has picked out one small area of “charismatic” to argue against, and it would be better, I suggest, to not write “charismatic” in his posts without accompanying it with some sort of qualifier. Maybe something like “I’m not a signs and wonders charismatic”, or “I’m not an expectational charismatic”–granted, those are a bit wordy, but I’m not the one who is using a particular meaning of “charismatic”.

In addition, CMP links his restricted definition to “continuationism” (by using the “/” he indicates that the are equivalent alternate terms) and makes it ooposite and exclusive to “cessation”, as if those two categories take up that whole field and divide it between themselves. hence, he directly implies that “continuationism” is the same as his restricted understanding of charismatic (“normative”, “expectation”). But, as I pointed out above, that is not true. “Continuationism” is a far broader category that includes both those who expect sign gifts every time they meet another Christian and those like Grudem or Moreland who see a far more restrained experience of gifts as appropriate.

CMP also does not provide adequate grounds or reasons for his statement that, “then you are not really a charismatic. The expectation is key. The normative is essential.” I don’t see that at all, either in the Bible, or in contemprorary writing about the charismatic gifts and experience. And even if it were true taht all writers who believe that all the charismata still happen used those two terms, each of those two terms is capable of a wide range or scope in meaning. How frequent does something have to be to be considered normative? what is the standard where an experience crosses the line from “occasional miracle” to “normative experience”? The same goes for “expected”; I expect the Spirit to produce all the charismata, even the ones that we in the West would consider unusual, even though I have never experienced them personally nor seen them demonstrated. There are also those who expect to see the gifts actually happen every Sunday. Yet both of us have an expectation. Someone might say that my expectaion is in the nature of “can” and “possible”, while the latter’s expectation is more in the realm of “will” and “probable”. Yet are both not legitimate expectations?

Based on the above, I suggest that CMP’s two categories, as he defines them, are not only definitionally inadequate, but also do not provide an adequate foundation for a useful analysis and discussion of the experience, or not, of the gifts of the Spirit.

regards,

Douglas #31
…whom I have apparently disturbed with my comments.

I notice how many people describe becoming cessationists…due to their observation of various Pentecostals or Charismatics….

Odd that it is continuationists who are generally accused of basing their theology on their experience…whereas, in my limited experience…it is largely cessationists who have an experiential anecdote behind their theological position.

Regarding “signs and wonders…being used as gimmicks to impress folks into a decision for Christ…” and why not just the preaching of the Word…”as was the custom in Acts and Epistles…”

Interesting evocation of Acts, where there is scarcely an act of evangelism without rather overt “supernatural” manifestation somewhere.

“Do we REALLY need miracles, signs and wonders for the Gospel to work…”

I think you are largely missing the point, evidently due to some bad examples…of which, admittedly, we have no shortage. Our evangelism relies wholly on the power of God. The gospel is the power of God for salvation for anyone who believes. There is no evangelism that is not supernatural. Do we suppose that Jesus found the gospel so weak that he worked miracles to buttress it? (God forbid) Or the apostles?? The work is always God’s, and He is sovereign in how He proceeds on each person that He draws to Himself. Essentially, He reveals His sweetness and goodness and overcomes the deadness of our hearts by His Spirit. Sometimes He is pleased to effect this by the hearing of the spoken or written word. We see others so touched by an invitation to lunch (Zacchaeus), acts of God’s kindness and mercy. It has nothing to do with OUR “need” or anything about us at all. It is a matter of what the Sovereign God is pleased to do. Any in my reading, at least, of the Scriptures, He has ordained the gifts in the Body for this purpose (among others perhaps). My reading of the Scriptures may well be faulty, but that’s really all I have to go by. I can’t rely on or defend the behavior of any particular people or groups.

Samuel #30. What can one say? Thanks for telling us why you hate…???

It is probably not worth responding to but, oh, well…

Not entirely sure whom you have in mind.

I don’t think anyone advocating continuationism here is into self-promotion, wanting everyone to pray through them (!), trust vision etc [more than God’s Word, I take your meaning], wanting to be the hero…

Sounds like everything you ever needed to know about continuationism you have seen on TV.

The issue is not whether there are goofy and cheesy people out there touting this or that theological perspective, but whether certain aspects of the teaching of the New Testament are time-limited or whether they are in force for us today.

It is interesting that, with very little reference to Scripture, you have determined that God no longer takes pleasure in glorifying Himself through the use of certain gifts of the Spirit. If you don’t have a certain gift, does that mean it does not exist? I hope the gift of mercy doesn’t cease as easily as you can declare tongues to have. God bless you. Thank you for being Christ-centered.

Layton, CT, Paul did not just say it depends on God’s will and left it at that. He also said, “earnestly desire the greater gifts”. Was that not also God’s expectation?What does God meant by ‘earnestly desire’? What does it mean but to persistently and fervently, ask, seek, and knock. It means taking the trouble, meeting challenges, and paying the price. Do you see anyone doing that? So God placed a door, but it is not going to be opened to those unwilling to play the game His way.

Continuationism has moved on for those who are earnest. Like Marv here I believe. Consider ‘miraculous’ healing. Why can’t anyone see that God actually grants His Church healing through several levels? Briefly:-
1.Healing for the unsaved in conjunction with evangelism. The 12, then the 72, were sent out to announce the Kingdom, drive out demons, and heal the sick. All this they did, weeks before being empowered by the Spirit. They simply did miracles by the power in the Name of Jesus. There is no reason why this cannot happen today.
2.Healing for the saved within the Charismatic Liturgy. This is the one mentioned by Paul in 1st Corinthians and the one most confused with (1) above. But the operational context is “when you are gathered together” (14:23,26) in a church service.
3.Healing for the saved by Elders (James 5:14). The appointment of elders are ordained by God (Titus 1:3). To highlight this, God places the onus on the sick to ‘summon’ the elders in recognition of their authority over him and his illness. The elders respond with the appropriate symbol (the oil) representing the Spirit who made them overseers (Acts 20:17,23).
4.Healing for the saved ‘by each other’ (James 5:16-19) through trust, transparency and fervent prayers. Here God honors a spiritually healthy fellowship with healing.
5.Personal faith and responsibility.

As you can see, there is no single panacea. Even a Cessationist church can perform miraculous healing. If some churches regularly observe point 3, it will be normative for them. If another regularly observes point 4, it will normative there. And so on. It all boils down to the ‘obedience of faith.’

Currently, points 1 and 2 are jumbled together in the Cessationism-Continuationism debate. But I think they need to be distinguished to narrow down the issue. For me, yeah, it is not about miracles but every Scripturally directed practice should be normative and it is really up to us to play the game by the rule.

I was really disturbed by Marv’s last comment (#23). I became a soft cessationist after years of being a Pentecostal because I was seeing that for some continuationist Christians, the signs and wonders were being used as gimmicks to impress folks into a decision for Christ, rather than the simple, “foolish” means of the preaching of the Word and allowing the Spirit to work – as was the custom in the Acts and Epistles. Do we REALLY need miracles, signs and wonders for the Gospel to do its work? I should hope not…

Michael,

Reasons why i hate Charismatic

1. People who claim they have these gifts use it to promote themself. They always want to say how great they are.

2. Since they are gifted, they want all people’s request to go through them. They bahave as authentic dealers for God mercy. They never encourage people to pray for themself.

3. Central idea in Christian faith is the trust on the Son to have fellowship with God. charismatic people’s trust is more on the vision, word(a word from a person who claims he got it from God), prophecy, and other signs. They have empty trust. Even if they trust Christ with the help of these signs, they are not complete trust.

charismatic folks are handed over to deception and they will never understand truth. All they want is to be hero. They can join show business.

John C.T (#28)

The explanation I find as most tenable and biblical is simple – God has not gifted where or when there is no need. I leave the gifting to the sovereignty of God (1 Cor. 12).

Layton (#26)

Not having been raised in charismatic circles, nor having moved and worshipped in them (though I did know such people), and gifts not being a reason why I am a follower of Jesus, I’ve never thought about teh absence of gifts deep enough to have a particular belief about their absence. In general, I think that the history of the church does show that the beauracracy did make concerted efforts to squlech the manifestation of the gifts, and to teach that their absence is proper and normative, and by so doing did greatly grieve the Spirit. Moreover, the church lost and did not record much about the proper use and experience of the gifts, which would have and should inform our current impoverished understanding of how and why and when to experience and use and express these gifts.

There is also some part of the explanation that will likely always remain unknown in this age, for the mind and purposes of God are not completely knowable, and the Spirit, like the wind, blows where He wishes.

I’m not saying that I’m correct, only that those are my current thoughts.

regards,

The problem of framing.

CMP defines a group of christians that he then labels “charismatics”. The christians in this group may come from and be found in a variety of backgrounds and churches, but they share some essential characteristics: “the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, worker of miracles, etc. are normative for the church and that we should commonly expect people to be gifted with them.”

Note in the definition some key terms: “sign”, “normative”, and “commonly expect” (I note also the unecessary and pejorative use of “so-called”, but I’ll leave that alone for now). While that may be truly descriptive of a certain group of Christians today, CMP has not shown that it is the properly descriptive essential characteristics of the Christians in the various churches Paul wrote to, at the time he wrote to them. Consequently, undermining the present group he labels “charismatic” does not default one to the the position of having to belong to the group he labels “cessationist”. One could agree that the position and beliefs of the current “charismatic” group are wrong, without having to then join the cessationst group (which is what some of the other commenters above have observed).

It certainly has not been demonstrated that tongues (etc., in CMPs’ list) were intended to be and to only be “sign” gifts, nor, among things, that the other gifts were not supernatural. Furthermore, it has not been established that the current “charismatic” understanding of the normativeness of the gifts in the life of the church is the same as the understanding of those early first century churches. That point has been raised several times by commenters, though CMP appears to dismiss all such comments when he declares that “Just about every objection that I have seen so far has been something I have belabored with blood, sweat, and tears to say is not the issue.” At any rate, he has not responded to those comments.

What the commenters have made efforts to establish is that there is a range of what could be considered “normative”. Some would argue that the historical experience of the church, in which in many centuries was a decidedly less frequent occurance of gifts, was still within the range of normative. Some have argued that gifting and normative does not mean frequent and regular–a person who is gifted with a healing may only perform it a few times a year or in their lifetime but still be considered to have been gifted by the spirit (my paraphrase). Others have pointed to the notion that our expectations are not God’s, and that even within charismatic churches God should not be expected to act like a coke machine that distributes when we expect Him to.

Hence the responses are only beside the point (beside CMP’s point) if the entire issue is properly restricted to only the framing that CMP gives it. I agree with those that point out that CMPS’s framing is not the only possible framing of the issue and that his framing may not be (in my belief is not) the correct one.

regards,